I saw that a Scottish Lawyer is suing Capita for harassment over their overly accusatory letters implying that you're a criminal for simply not needing a TV Licence. This may have huge implications if he manages to win.

I had one of their salemen turn up a few weeks ago. After closing the door on him I got his car reg and checked it on the .Gov website and discovered the car he was in had not been taxed since Oct 21st last year. Thought it best to inform the DVLA.

The sad thing is that there are many people out there who still genuinely believe you must have a licence if you own a TV.

It is blatantly deliberate obfuscation to trick people into unnecessarily paying for a licence.

Never let them in and they will never have proof you was watching TV. Never replay to any letter, never tell them your name, get a massive dog 👍

As we watch the nightmare of the Horizon scandal unfolding, how much of a parallel is the ‘enforcement’ of TV licensing by the private company responsible. Is this the next major miscarriage of justice brewing?

When I was at uni me and my housemate got a letter saying that we could register for a list that means we don't need to register for a license. We both knew we didn't need one laughed at the oxymoron that we could register to say we didn't need to register, needless to say we just ignored it and that was the last we heard of it. However a group of friends of mine in a different house decided to be good and do as the letter said. They then got harassed by the tv license's saying they they did in fact need to get one {they really didn't} and even had to have inspection and everything. The demands to pay for a license never stopped even after an inspection that proved they didn't need one. They all wished they had just ignored it to begin with.

What could possibly go wrong with having a company being judge, jury and executioner, AND just to make sure we will streamline the justice system too. Any bonus paid in any way to enforcement employees !!!

When I telephoned to advise them that I don’t need a TV licence, the woman said “You can do this online.” I told her I’d tried to do it online, but their website was incorrect in that however you answered, you would *_always_* need a licence. She told me “Well you need a Licence to watch Eastenders.” Me: I’ve never watched it, nor do I ever intend to watch it. Her: “Well you need one to watch (some dancing programme or other).” Me: Why on earth would I want to watch D list celebrities being taught how to dance?” Me: The BBC hasn’t put out any decent programmes for *_decades_* you know, things like I, Claudius.” Her: “Oh, right then.” Bye, bye BBC.

Coffee and Popcorn time. In 2001 I got a knock on the door from the police. There was a warrant for my arrest due to me allegedly watching television without a licence, I was handcuffed (I kid you not) and placed in to the back of a police van and taken straight to the local magistrates court (our police station bordered the magistrates at the time) and swiftly handed over to the custody sarg'. Whilst being processed I was asked if I understood why I was there, I said that I didn't understand as I didn't even own a television and was promptly laughed at by the custody sarg who basically said "That's what they all say" and was the stripped of belt, laces etc and guided to a cell with three over people inside. About thirty to forty five minutes went by (could be longer but time certainly felt slower) and the cell door opens, a security officer (think it was G4 security) calls my name and I exit the cell. I'm then re-handcuffed and lead up some stairs to what I can only describe as a perspex cage for zoo animals (better known as the dock). I was then lectured at by the magistrate for about fifteen minutes about how much trouble I was in for illegally watching television. Eventually he gets round to the sentencing and I was ordered to pay the maximum amout of £1000, kicked out the back door with my belongings in a plastic back and sent on my merry way. Those with a keen eye will notice that at no point was I allowed to speak to a solicitor. I was basically just taken from my home, placed in a cell, dragged up to the dock and lectured at for 15 minutes or so and then whacked with a £1000 fine for not even owning a television. So in my very humble opinion the BBC, TV LIcensing AND the Legal system can all FCUK right off. Since that happened in 2001 I have ALWAYS declared that I am legally licence free. Now that the main comment is over, lets jump back in time a little bit, some of you will be assuming that there's no smoke without fire, after all I did have a warrent out for my arrest so I must clearly be guilty right? Okay, so here's how it all began. Sometime in September of 2000 I got a visit from two smartly dressed women who were apparently conducting a survey on peoples television watching habits (yes I was young and stupid, I should have heard the alarm bells ringing from orbit). I said that I didn't watch any television as I mainly played computer games (which was and still is true lol). They seemed satisfied with that answer and asked if I could sign their form to confirm that they had spoken to me (by now those alarm bells should have been going off like a ruddy klaxon but I still didn't hear them). So yeah, stupid me signed the darn form and thought nothing of it. Anyways, about a month later I moved to a new property and that would loop us back to the beginning of the post. To finish off and to basically add to my defense. I am autistic, I trusted people too much but most importantly I always tell the truth even to the point of it getting me in some serious trouble sometimes lol (we're talking ex wife asking about certain clothing, haircut choices and other random stuff, not the legal kind of serious trouble lol). So when I told the two women that I didn't watch television and when I told the custody sargeant that I didn't understand what was happening, I meant every word of it. What I FULLY understand now is that TV Licensing are made up of lying deceitful people and the legal system is just as bad.

What's crazy about the TV licence is that it covers live tv on non-BBC channels, yet those broadcasters don't get a penny from the licence fee No TV licence should = no BBC live or iplayer and as the others are funded by subscription or advertising then you should be able to watch those other services live

Fantastic and informative video Daniel. The TV licence scandal, we hope, is the next scandal to be revealed. Thank you for helping to shed light on all of this.

anyone else sense the next up for a Public Enquiry will be TV Licensing and Capita ?

Literally no need to contact them

Daniel, what comes to mind here is they bully, harass and prosecute people who lawfully don't watch live TV or BBC iplayer to need a licence. It rings alarms same as how the post office was able to prosecute people on there own terms. Yet, I contact them through their complaints process for making a no licence needed and hammered with texts, emails and letters and I don't receive a response. This needs a test case to end

The Goon Office has a lot in common with the Post Office. Stephen Bradshaw who was the first post office investigator interrogated at the Post Office scandal enquiry was previously a TV licence Goon.

I have NOT paid 25 years. If they come to the door I just say no thanks and shut the door. I DO stick to the rules I have NOT watched bbc / I player or live I do not even watch on catch up. I watch Netflix and other programme apps but NEVER I player EVERYTHING on BBC is basically crap anyway

So glad TV licences aren’t a thing in my country (Australia). They sound like an absolute nightmare

It's utter madness than an "entertainment TV channel" is capable of prosecuting people. Then you get the usual BBC self adverts talking about how they're uniquely funded. Unique alright.. with threats, intimidation, harassment and prosecution.

It also really irks me that the BBC also collects Ad revenue on KZfaq! They say they do so in order to reach a wider audience.

The scummy bastards know exactly what they're doing. Purely and cynically done to mislead, confuse and scare the public into buying a license. This scandalous racket MUST be brought to an end! CANCEL YOUR TV LICENCE NOW!!!!!

Like the post office, the BBC shouldn't have any rights of prosecution

confusion is tvl's greatest ally.

they think they are above the law

The very idea that not paying for a tv subscription (because that's what it is) is a "criminal" offence is ridiculous and needs to stop.

The vagueness is deliberate. Without question. BBC needs calling out, preferably by ITV.

Some people who get prosecuted by TVL cannot go to court because their employer won't allow then a day off work to defend their case.

Since you last went through the cancellation form on their website, they've made changes and it's very dodgy! When you get to the part that says: [ Tick here if you have no plans at the moment ] When you tick that box, it auto fills in the form with a date for 2 years time. So you then un-tick that box, click at the bottom of the page to confirm, and you're then shown an error message, stating that you must tick that box, and it won't allow you to confirm without doing so. There is, also no option to change that date. The way I got around it (at least I believe I have) was not to tick that box, and to put in a date for 2099, under where it says, 'When do expect to watch live tv, blah blah' ...

This is meant to be confusing for the ordinary person; to scare them into, may be unnecessarily, buying a licence. If you’re having trouble with it then heaven help the rest of us.

My Papa (rest his soul at the age of 96) was pestered for 20 years to get a Licence. Luckily he had family to guard him.

If they explained it too well, people wouldn't feel threatened. it's all just smoke and daggers

Only self admission will get you procecuted. Say nothing🤫 Sign nothing ✍️ Ignore all letters Ignore the goons at your door. It's very simple 😁

Do you need to pay a TV license if you are blind and dead? They tried to claim a TV license fee from a deceased estate of a blind lady. She couldn't read the pile of demand letters so missed out on the harassment and intimidation.

I suspect about half of those convicted didn't actually require a licence and had false information. The other half were trying their luck and had false information.

The legislation is a mess. TV licensing worked when using a TV set in any way meant you had to have a licence. The fact that it's needed for watching something live but not watching the same thing half an hour later on catch up is an unenforceable farce.

Mad Nads admitted that it was a tax, so the government is not inclined to do anything about the TV licence

Why do people need to tell TV Licence they do not need a licence? This is a service and is not mandatory surely it should be up to TV Licence to prove you are watching TV illegally

Not having had a TV for 36 years I do not need a licence. yet i have this winter been harassed by threatening letters designed to make me buy a licence, letters with a muddled layout and comments on not needing one being lost in the plethora of information about needing one. One cannot contact TV licensing by email so I wrote to it. The website requires one to put in a licence number (which one does not have) if you want to communicate via the website. My comments were on harassment, layout of letters, the statement which left people to infer that 1 in 8 people without a licence when interviewed actually needed one. when careful reading of the muddle letter stated the opposite. I also asked for the legal reference which required me to state a negative ( that I do not need a licence) TV licencing responded "we choose the wording of our letters carefully" " we do not accept that our letters amount to harassment" "it is not our intention" . It confirmed that there is no legal reference that requires one to make a negative statement but added " that there is nothing in law preventing us from writing to people when going about our lawful business." Courtesy comes to mind. So much for its bullying and threatening letters.

The letters they send out are the same, its deliberately confusing so as to bamboozle and frighten people into thinking they must have a licence. The goons they send out also have in the past tried to tell me I need a licence to own a TV. It's about time the government put a stop to this and scrap the licence.

Typical government tactics, fear is control. I haven't had a TV for nearly 15 years, declaration by phone stating I don't need a licence every two years and I still get the threatening reminders every month.

I mean what can go wrong if a body other than the CPS is allowed to prosecute someone, for something illegal 🤷 It is also perverse that you need licence to watch live TV in channels other than the BBC and Channel 4.

Average lone pensioner here, and I encountered the same issue when I was looking to cancel my licence. I watched lots of vids like this then, attempting to do my 'due diligence', I also went to check the site before taking the plunge. As a retired Civil Servant I was trained to dig into and apply various bits of legislation, but I was equally confused by the wording here. As you pointed out, in one part it appears to say that I need a licence to watch ANY TV, and in another it says I only needed one if I watch (or record) LIVE TV. In the end I took, what felt to me at the time, a shaky decision, and cancelled my licence. (I only watch on-demand streaming services (not including BBC I-player.) Even having done that, it was months before I felt comfortable, and lived in fear of a knock at the door. I suspect there are many, many, people of my age group who, for whatever reason, do not have access to information like this, are only trusting the BBC Licensing site, and are consequently paying for a licence they don't need. Let's be real...how many of us read past the first page?

A month ago they finally sent a man round to check we did not need a TV license, after 3 times of telling they were coming on a specific day. He went away having spoken to us, no action taken. Within a month they continued to send harassing letters threatening a visit to check we do not need a license. Last week they said they are in the area checking. I have found it continually confusing but finally decided i did not require a license. They make all the information deliberately vague and contradictory to sow the seeds of doubt and i think a significant minority pay for a license when they do not need one. But it is not in the MSM interest to publicise the issue. They are being purposefully vague because they know thousands would stop paying.

If you look at what is allowed on catch up, it would seem that BBC’s iplayer is included.

What happens regarding the need for a TV licence in HM Prisons? Surely the inmates must watch television. Does each individual require a licence? This is rather tongue in cheek!

How many people are being prosicuted without attending court ?. Why would they not be in court ?. Have they not been imformed about the court date ?. Is it too far to attend ?. What are the procedures when you are being proicuted ?.

Maybe a class action lawsuit is needed by all those who have been unfairly prosecuted in the past? Your friend ChilleJonCarne has this evening posted a video requesting that such people contact an organisation that may well lead to just such an outcome. There needs to be oversight in private prosecutions brought about by big companies because quite frankly, they're incapable of policing themselves!

That’s the whole point, keep it vague/contradictory confusing about other tv other than live, that way some people will still pay

If I didn't know better I'd suspect it was to deliberately deceive people.

Anyone still prepared to give money to this lot is beyond me anyway..simply stop watching it it's lies ..and they really have never addressed the saville culture there, why would anyone voluntarily pay them money.

The liscence is confusing for two reasons.Either you have to pay if you have a tv no matter what you watch or have no tv at all and dont.The very fact its still called a TV tax implies it cant apply to a phone or tablet because they are not a TV.I dont think even the powers to be know how to deal with streaming any programme on a device anywhere.At home or on a bus or train or in a vehicle etc etc.Even courts must be confused over the very word "TV" as we understand a "TV" to mean .Ie not a laptop,tablet or smart phone.If I go to Currys and ask to buy a TV they will indeed show me TV,s as opposed to laptops,tablets or smartphones.They are not "TV,s

I got rid of my tv when I found out they had been billing me for 2 addresses and wouldn’t refund me one of the old address even though I could prove they had taken both payments out of my bank. Now I will never use anything that requires a tv license. They lost out for being greedy.

In my view the TV licencing website is very deceptive, "either intentionally or shows gorse incompetence of the TV licencing probably the former". Also taking into consideration the TV licencing letters they send out the wording and layout of them many people would find them deceptive threatening and intimidating. Many thanks for your videos very interesting and informative.

Can any thing be done to force them to change their word fluffing? It is infuriating

Every time I get a letter from them I re do my delegation of not needing one, I hope it cost them somthing

Are TV Licencing guilty of batch applications for warrants to magistrate courts, as the likes of energy suppliers do? I.e a list of many tens to hundreds of names and addresses are sent for 'rubber stamping'. i)Without the knowledge of the defendants, ii)Without evidence presented and.. iii)Without magistrates looking at cases on an individual basis. Further, is this legal? Many thanks for all you do!

If I need a licence to watch TV, then I need a licence to watch it at my friend's house? That's how it sounds.

They make the wording ambiguous to confuse people so that people really think they have to have one.

It should be renamed to LIVETV LICENCE.

All institutions that have the right to prossecute, should have this right rescinded asap. As has been highlighted many times, this right is often abused resulting in many miscarriages of justice. When the number of people, who ditched their TVs, and ergo the need to purchase a licence, began increasing, they were quite disparaging about us, that number has increased, year on year, so they resort to subterfuge, being disingenuous, and duplicity, not to mention their focus on the penalties, and consequences. Project Fear version, whatever. Councils are no better, and regarding the Post Office scandal various people charged with taking action would appear to be dragging their heels. Is there a Statute of Limitation pertaining to redress of miscarriages of justice? I hope not, but given the advanced age of many wrongly convicted. How much longer will they have to wait?

All Catchup/On Demand TV apps and websites have a Live section. So that’s why they tell you that you can’t watch Live without a TV Licence. If they didn’t make that distinction, people would think they could watch Live on Catchup/On Demand without a TV Licence, which isn’t the case.

The one thing that really Riles me is, how can a Blind person be prosecuted for not having a TV licence? Surely the clue to it being absolutely farcical is in the name of the license, TV . . .Albeit `Tele-VISION` . . . . .Are they that dumb or heartless as to what it means to a blind person, to not only lose their eyesight, but to then be expected to pay for something they cannot even see? Also the fact that if you buy a TV the retailer is duty bound to send your details to the TV licensing people with your address. The TV licensing authority has had its day, it is well overdue for scrapping pending a massive Legal compensation payout to all those wrongly convicted, will make the Post Office situation look like chicken feed. It could potentially wipe out Tv Licensing, and the knock on effect? The BBC not being funded by an official Government source, which means they would have to charge people for their services like sky and all the rest. The cash cow has to stop, it is time the BBC were forced to move into the 21st century. No other business has been offered such a massive amount of funding in the same way, so why should the BBC be the exception? Thanks Daniel for all of your very informative videos, very enlightening and full of facts and good solid advice.

As an outsider, it seems they have a vested interest in creating confusion about who needs to pay and fear that getting it wrong will hurt, thus, profit, even if shady (At best) or illegal (at worst). Thus, without binding external force, they will not change their Gestapo level tactics.

Perhaps the TVL goons were trained by the Post Office?

I would say nearly 98% of all cases are innocent.

I have been told I need a licence to watch DVDs on my monitor.

Why don't you offer to defend a case, for free so we can see how it goes?

How can a company prosecute some one based on evidence supplied by a person who is on commision and will benifit from said prosecution

Just totally ridiculous situation, bbc is a business and should fund itself. How ludicrous in this age

Extortion..

This is why the office of parliamentary counsel spend hours upon hours combing through statute for flaws and not TV licensing

Being dyslexic this website confuses me 🤔

Deliberately made ambiguous to confuse and or frighten.

Mate, you assume these people 1. care about the people they live off, 2. have some form of rational way to implement their mandate 3, have any morals or ethics as it should apply to their existence as useful people in our society

Something really needs to be done at this point. Any other business would get done for telling their clients that they needed extra work done, especially if they said they needed to have x and the cost for not doing so could potentially fines, etc. They spend something like £5 million a year on these letters, maybe they could spend a small fraction of that in correcting the wording with some legal representatives, or, and this might sound cynical but does the ambiguity bring in more money for them as anyone unsure is likely to not "risk it" and hand over the money each year anyway.

I don't watch Telievision since 2020 and I don't have to engage or tell them why

Most convictions are because they've admitted it. Whether they are actually guilty or not is a different matter as only they will know that.

I would say that the phrase "watching it on a channel" is where the difference lies. On demand is usually not on a TV channel that you can tune in to. You need to use a specific app to stream on demand programs. Channels, however, are what are considered live TV, as they are being broadcast on that TV channel, usually over the air through an antenna or a satellite dish (though, I know some services use the internet now, they are still usually broadcast as is, to a channel)

Why are people convicted if their lawyer can read this as you can?

Thanks Daniel. I love how you get more frustrated with every video about the license. I look forward to the next one where you flip a table :p

If they really wanted to be legit in people watching a TV subscription they would just set it up like any other subscription service where you have to sign up for their service. They obviously won't do this because they know how much they'd lose so would rather try to stitch up the "customer" instead

They need the money, they deliberately misword it so as to make people think they have to pay when they don't.

I must admit it doesn't surprise me that the website is misleading as I feel it is deliberate to ensure people buy a TV licence even if they're not sure they need one. It's about time the licence was scrapped. 😔

I’ve just started sending their ‘To Legal Occupier’ letters back. I simply write ‘Not known at this address’ on the front and pop it in the local postbox. Very satisfying indeed :)

Do 1970's shows count as 'Live TV' even if the cast are not alive anymore?

Daniel. When I was a magistrate, this before internet streaming services were available and Satelitte/cable were just rolling out we would hold a 1 day (monthly) TV licensing court. Many times in the list of cases we would find issues. Your statistic about women does not surprise me. The fact that the law held that the person opening the door was liable for prosecution seemed to ensare, disproportionately, women and young adults.

Don't buy a TV License, and don't ever talk to them. The end.

I refused to do a no licence needed declaration online because answering the questions correctly it said I did need a licence which is NOT the case, it asks "Do you or does anyone in your household ever watch TV on any TV service?" and yes I do, I watch TV on demand, E.g. Netflix, but it doesn't mention live and I wasn't willing to lie. I still needed a refund so I cancelled my direct debit and sent them an email instead demanding a refund, the money was refunded to my bank about 2 weeks later.

Who would pay to be brainwashed and indoctrinated anyway?

What a great idea it would be for Licence Authority to employ a lawyer to glance their dictats. A translator too. Probably too late though. They'll just be history in a year or so.

The only way for them to prosecute is if people are dumb enough to let them in, they’re only heavy handed salesmen. Looking for commission.

There is no way to stop the letters unlike all other companies that spam you. How is that legal. There is only a temporary opt out unlike the right to be forgotten that exists everywhere else.

I thought the original reason for paying BBC for a TV licence was because they gave you uninterrupted programming. So were not sponsored by adverts! So Anything you watch that makes you watch adverts technically should be free! Or you can choose to pay a fee to KZfaq or whoever to get to watch things uninterrupted by adds. When did this all change, or was this just back when we only had 3 TV stations available to us!?!

I remember the Martin Lewis TV show stating clearly you need a licence to watch ITVplayer.

Just ghost them if they don't know your name. They have no access to council tax or electoral rolls, if they do know your name, just do a ANK return to sender (Attempted Not Known) simples.

My latest two letters stated that I must buy a license in order to prevent an investigation and that they would ignore my withdrawal of implied right of access if I ignore their correspondence, which I asked them to stop sending me.

One of my biggest take aways from this dive into the various web pages is that BBC/Capita have defined what is allowed online to be watched live without a TV licence, which Ive never seen before. This clears the streaming KZfaq/Twitch issue. The statement "On Demand also includes exclusive programmes that are only available online" , so watching a Twitch or KZfaq stream is on demand, and also such things as watching live coverage of sports events that are broadcast only online such as Ironman World Champs etc. This is pretty huge.

It’s up there with The Post Office scandal.

The tv licence should be scrapped. Its daylight robbery.

I’m TVLs own words 7 out of 8 did not require a licence. The number if this is the case could be in the tens of thousands.